Free rent, free bike – but would you move to East Germany?
Eastern block charm: Residential complexes in Eisenhuettenstadt. Photo / Getty Images
Opinion
Like many Europeans, you too have probably daydreamed about picturesque Italian villages where you can buy a house for just a couple of New Zealand dollars. Italian village authorities have been offering up properties for as little as one euro in order to keep their towns alive as youngsters move to big cities and the elderly have nobody to leave their rustic homes to.
Facing the same sorts of issues, small towns in France and Croatia have launched similar schemes. And now the Germans are trying to get on the act, too.
Well, sort of. In typical German style, it's not quite as wildly romantic as a one-euro shanty on a French mountainside. Instead, municipalities in rapidly depopulating former East Germany are promoting what they call Probewohnen, or 'trial residency'. Hundreds have applied for an apartment, at no or minimal cost, for several weeks. The idea is that they get a taste of life in the East and then potentially decide to stay.
Goerlitz, a town on the border with Poland, has had a scheme like this in various forms since 2015. Other towns have caught on more recently. Last year Guben, population 16,000, started its own version – besides an apartment, the city will even give you a bicycle to get around on. Later this summer, Eisenhuettenstadt, population 24,000, will welcome its first trial residents.
Other East German cities, including Frankfurt an der Oder, Wittenberge, Dessau-Rosslau and Eberswalde, have also flirted with temporary tenants.
Tangible results are hard to come by. Surveys by the Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development suggest 47% of the temporary residents in Goerlitz 'could imagine moving there'. Nobody seems to know if they ever actually did. In Guben, around 13 families out of 48 have stayed.
In Frankfurt an der Oder, six tenants out of 20 signed permanent rental contracts.
Some folk do love the idea. As one wannabe Goerlitz-er, interviewed by the Liebniz Institute, explained, 'I like Goerlitz a lot because it's still a city – but without those big city problems.'
On the other hand, those crumbling Italian and French villages do conjure up bucolic, olive oil-drenched visions: baguettes for breakfast, quaint locals, romantic misunderstandings and sun-sweetened tomatoes, with lashings of red wine, for lunch.
Eisenhüttenstadt, built in the 1950s as a model socialist city and once called Stalinstadt, offers a greying collection of Soviet-era prefab apartment blocks in a park-like setting. Good times for fans of Brutalist architecture. But would you really want to live there?
There's something even worse lurking in former East Germany. It's here that the country's far-right party, Alternative for Germany or AfD, is particularly popular. The AfD, with its xenophobic policies, got at least a third of all votes in these areas in the last federal elections. In Goerlitz, the AfD – chapters of which are under observation by domestic spy agencies for their extremist tendencies – got almost 49%.
Germany is already having problems attracting people to fill labour shortages caused by its ageing population. Around 400,000 people annually are needed here to remedy those. But at the same time, the most recent research by the Institute for Employment Research at Germany's Federal Employment Agency shows that one in four immigrants is considering leaving town.
Two-thirds of around 50,000 immigrants polled said they had experienced discrimination, especially in interactions with authorities, police and at the workplace. Another third said they'd never felt welcome in Germany. And then, they add, there's the stifling bureaucracy, the high taxes and huge health insurance bills. Can a free bike and two rent-free weeks combat all that? Seems unlikely.
Cathrin Schaer is a freelance journalist living in Berlin.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
9 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Why are we more likely to buy when our options are limited?
Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech. Why are we more likely to buy when our options are limited? Good business sense using consumer psychology. Photo / Getty Images Every city has its signatures. In Ho Chi Minh City it was someone pointing at my sneakers and offering to clean them. In Da Nang it was, 'Taxi, sir?' and in Hội An it's been, 'Want a boat ride?' We have resolutely fought off all efforts to part us from our money. Well, most efforts. It was our first afternoon in Hội An, a historical port city in central Vietnam, home to a Unesco world-heritage ancient town. We'd gone in search of a particular tailor, recommended to us by our hotel and breathless English tourists on TikTok. At the first street corner, I got out my phone to check directions, and 15 minutes later we were at a completely different tailor, having been expertly waylaid by one of their 'scouts', who'd seen us and asked if she could offer directions … The next day we did a lantern-making class at our hotel, led by the ever-patient tutor, Moon. Moon asked us what we had planned and made a few recommendations, including one for dinner at the Citadel restaurant at which a friend of hers worked. That evening, we followed her advice and had a frankly delightful evening marked by fantastic food, an absolutely lovely waitress, Anna, and regular check-ins from Gray, the manager (who also happens to be a Kiwi). As with every restaurant we visited, we had to force ourselves to sit back and enjoy the experience; at no point did we ever feel like we had to rush to finish, pay, and give up our table to the next customer. Not like, ahem, at home in Wellington. What do these latter examples have in common? Bloody good business sense based on friendliness and strategic use of consumer psychology. Having recently hosted friends visiting Wellington from overseas, my heart was warmed by hearing them say how friendly New Zealanders are, but it's a step change to Vietnamese hospitality. For example, first and last impressions count or, in technical terms, primacy and recency. We make impressions incredibly quickly and largely unconsciously, and research shows that, while we care deeply about how good the chef is, we have to be drawn in first to find out. That can hang entirely on the rapport we sense from our first encounter. When we left the restaurant, Anna farewelled us by our names (which she remembered several days later when we happened to pass by). That's a personal touch that leaves a positive impression. Ever started to feel tense because wait staff check in on you a little too frequently? Or neglected because they don't check in at all? That's another tricky balance, and one that requires a bit of intuition about the best time to stop by. Another thing Citadel did well, but almost every other restaurant we ate at didn't, was a sensibly curated set of options. Ever eaten at the American restaurant chain The Cheesecake Factory? The menu runs to more than 200 items and around 20 pages. It is frankly exhausting. You get to a point where you no longer care what you order, you just want to make it stop. Psychology researchers Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper are probably best associated with the notion of this 'paradox of choice'. In a particularly well-known experiment they showed that people may be more likely to head over to a counter offering 24 types of jam than a counter with only six, but people were 10 times more likely to buy jam when the number of types available was reduced from 24 to six. Why? Because what if you make the wrong choice? The more choices, the harder the decision, and the greater the likelihood of buyer's remorse. So in keeping with this research, we broke our holiday rule and went back to the Citadel and its more limited number of choices a second time.
Otago Daily Times
11 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Second airport consultation period set after community calls heard
PHOTO: ALLIED PRESS FILES The Wānaka community has more time to have a say on the future of the airport, after the first round of feedback was completed. French consultant group Egis has been contracted by the Queenstown Lakes District Council to seek independent feedback from stakeholders and community members, and it has extended the timeline of the independent review. In June, Egis hosted two in-person community sessions in Wānaka, complemented by an online feedback platform that remained open until July 15. Participants now have the opportunity to provide further input during a second round of consultation. In June, the Wānaka Stakeholders Group launched its own proposal for the airport, advocating for a development model centred on strong local input. Group chairwoman Meg Taylor said the council was proceeding with a "dual process" — an application for qualifying aerodrome certification and a Wānaka Airport future review, both to be completed by 2027. Ms Taylor said the council was asking the Upper Clutha community what it wanted to happen at the airport, but risked pre-determining that outcome. The second input period will be from August 25 to September 18 via This will be supported by two in-person drop-in sessions on August 29 and 30, venues and times to be confirmed. Kerr Forbes, aviation lead for Egis in Australia and New Zealand, said "we've heard clearly from the community that they value this opportunity to be involved, and they want more time to contribute".
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Tesla liable for $243m in fatal Key Largo crash, jury blames autopilot
In his closing argument Thursday, Joel Smith, an attorney representing Tesla, lay the blame for the crash solely on McGee. 'He said he was fishing for his phone,' Smith said. 'It's a fact. That happens in any car. That isolates the cause. The cause is, he dropped his cellphone.' On rebuttal, plaintiff's attorney Brett Schreiber told jurors that Tesla promoted the autopilot feature knowing it increased the likelihood of distracting drivers. Schreiber displayed a 2016 statement by Musk saying the emergency braking feature could detect anything, including an alien spaceship or a hunk of metal in the road. Tesla's driver assistance technology was blamed for enabling driver distraction, leading to the fatal crash. Photo / Getty Images 'In the showroom, it's the greatest car ever made,' Schreiber said. 'In the courtroom, they say it's a jalopy. 'Tesla knew for years that its product was defective,' he added. 'Despite that people were using autopilot irresponsibly. This was a case of systematic failure.' The outcome is a massive blow to Musk, who has staked the future of his company on fully autonomous driving. Tesla is facing several similar lawsuits across the country that allege the CEO and his company have overstated the capabilities of the technology. Friday's verdict could now open Tesla up to more liability in the future. The verdict comes at a particularly vulnerable moment for Tesla, which has been struggling since Musk's controversial foray into politics. The company's sales and profits tanked after Musk joined the Trump administration and led its controversial cost-cutting initiative, the US Doge Service. The billionaire left the administration after a fiery public fallout with the President over his spending Bill – but Tesla's finances have yet to recover. Tesla faced two California juries in 2023 for alleged defects and was found not liable in both cases. It has also settled at least four such cases out of court that alleged defects with its technology, including one regarding a separate autopilot-related case just days before the Miami trial was set to begin. In Oakland, California, state regulators are also fighting to remove Tesla's ability to sell vehicles in the state over allegations that it dangerously misled drivers to believe its cars could drive themselves without human oversight. That case is ongoing. In Miami, Tesla faced a highly technical and emotional three-week trial as the Benavides Leon family and Angulo attended nearly every day. The families sat through much of the testimony and attentively listened as attorneys dissected the crucial seconds leading up to the crash. The two sides sparred over whether the company's statements about autopilot were misleading, whether the company was forthcoming about critical evidence in the case – and if the crash could have been prevented at all. The case also tested public sentiment of Musk, a controversial figure known for pushing boundaries and evolving technology out to the public. Last month, Tesla launched its fully autonomous Robotaxi in Austin, despite a lack of federal regulation and clear safety guidelines. Beyond Tesla, Musk's AI chatbot, Grok, came under fire last month after launching into an antisemitic rant. The verdict could increase Tesla's future liability, amidst ongoing lawsuits and regulatory challenges. Photo / Getty Images Several days into the trial, a juror was dismissed for perceived bias against Musk. The defence said it uncovered a 'vitriolic and venomous' tirade against Musk on one of the juror's social media pages, according to a court transcript provided to the Post. In a TikTok post from earlier this year, according to the transcript, the juror states 'A good Nazi is a dead one. Do you agree? F-U Elon Musk.' The plaintiffs' attorney rested much of their defence on Musk's statements about autopilot, which they argue convinced his customers that his technology was more capable than reality. They highlighted statements from the CEO that claim autopilot has 'superhuman' sensors, that autonomous driving is a 'solved' problem and that his technology can see any object on the road including 'an alien spaceship'. They also argued that Tesla acted recklessly by allowing autopilot to function on roads it is not designed for. Tesla's decision not to limit the technology to operate only on roads that meet the criteria in its own user manuals was the subject of a 2023 recall by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Advertisement Still, the defence faced a tough legal battle, as Tesla has extensive warnings in its owner's manual and the law indicates that drivers are responsible for the trajectory of the vehicle despite the type of feature engaged. McGee, told police at the scene that he took his eyes off the road to pick up a dropped cellphone. McGee said on the witness stand that he wasn't sure if he had heard Musk's comments about the technology and didn't believe they influenced his decision to buy the vehicle. He testified that he knew his Tesla 'was not self-driving' and that it was his 'job to always be alert as a driver'. He also told the jury that he believed autopilot would lead him to have an overall 'safer drive' by helping him navigate on his long commute and avoid collisions. 'My concept was that it would assist me should I have a failure … or should I make a mistake,' he said. 'And in that case I feel like it failed me.' Tesla's defence attorneys grilled Angulo and Benavides Leon's sister, Neima, about their previous lawsuit against McGee in which they settled over allegations that he operated his vehicle recklessly. The defence also mentioned the boat and home that Angulo bought since the crash. Neima Benavides and Angulo told the jury that they didn't initially know McGee was using autopilot when they sued him. But as time passed, Neima Benavides said they learned there were 'two components' in the crash. 'We have the driver,' she said. 'And we have the car too.'
